Lightroom: Why two different applications?

As if LR plus PS was not enough for some people, now we have to do comparisons between two confusingly named apps, with the "classic" one of the two sounding like it is going out of the window after some more version releases. Last time I checked if I could upload my stuff to cloud storage I found out that I need weeks and that at the same time I could hardly use my connection. Living in NYC or SF might not pose an Internet speed issue but many of us cannot use the new LR CC, even if we wanted to.

My personal opinion is that Adobe should develop cloud storage as an option in a single LR product line, so that people can gradually get to use the new features and do thing smartly. This is obviously not the case. I am sure Adobe will put its weight behind the new CC because obviously charging for cloud space is more profitable.

I think however that it is risking losing many of its current followers. I am not taking any decisions without thinking thinks over and doing comparisons, I have to say however that new software that is currently working as LR/PS plugins will soon be able to do editing and cataloging, much like Adobe software is doing now. And there will probably be migration tools as well.

With the work I am currently doing there is no way I am putting up with the exclusive cloud storage Adobe proposes, it simply cannot work. I am definitely keeping my options open and have some hope that Adobe will come to its senses before it is to late.

I've seen you parrot this link to multiple posts on this subject and I just need to state with all sincerity - the video at that link is NOT addressing the voice of the customer. The customer, Dimitrios in this case, is telling you that the naming convention is confusing and frustrating, ﻿in addition to not seeing the value of the offering﻿.

There is a HUGE difference between saying 'it's a bad product' and saying that 'the product name is bad.' I think these two are getting conflated by the fact that the worry caused via the naming convention is necessitating people to express their need for the former product, while at the same time expressing how unfortunate the name is reused from an existing and established product.

Julianne's video does not address the customer concern in naming convention. She makes a strong case for what the new product is, attempts to establish why it's a unique offering, and does spend time giving assurances around the longevity of the existing tools - but at no point does she ever state why such a lazy and indiscreet naming convention was employed. For that sir, you're going to need to find a new video link to appropriately point to a tangible and useful answer.

Thank you for the reply, I posted above after having seen the video. For now it is LR classic CC for the reasons I explained above, I am afraid LR CC will go on the side. Let's hope Adobe will not let down its professional users in the future.

I think the video made things worse, phrases like "we are still in v1" and "who knows what is coming next" make people insecure. Now the next thing to expect is the new editing and cloud tools from Instagram so that no other software is necessary...

See http://blogs.adobe.com/photoshop/2017/10/introducing-lightroom-cc-lightroom-classic-cc-and-more.html "Lightroom Classic CC is designed for desktop-based (file/folder) digital photography workflows. It’s a well-established workflow solution that is distinct and separate from our new cloud-native service. By separating the two products, we’re allowing Lightroom Classic to focus on the strengths of a file/folder based workflow that many of you enjoy today, while Lightroom CC addresses the cloud/mobile-oriented workflow." The new Lightroom CC also focus on the ease of use. The professional photographers who wants all the Lightroom Classic capabilities to support their own very specific workflows have no appetite for a streamlined experience that reduce their ability to get things done quickly and efficiently.

Note that the team had tried a new streamlined Import UI in Lr 6.2 and while some people liked it, many didn't. The team heard it loud and clear. The availabiltiy of this two versions of Lightroom allows each to aggressively address the needs two customer segments. Having said that, Lightroom Classic CC and Lightroom CC share much of the same key components code and developers.

Lightromm Classic is for High Volume DSLR users. (US) Lightroom CC is for Camera Phone people that only take smaller amount of photo's.. While I say this example Ive taken 85k pictures this year. a buddy has only taken a thousand. I'm staying with Classic

"I don’t really require the complexity of Classic" But this is only the 1st version of CC & Adobe have said they will be developing it to include the missing features so eventually it will be as complex as Classic (and possibly replace it)...

I've just had an email from Adobe which states "We know you’ve got a lot
invested in the current version of Lightroom you’ve been using. Rest assured
that we’ll continue to improve it while we develop the new service"

This can be read two ways; does it mean "we'll continue to develop Classic until the new CC is fully developed at which stage Classic will be discontinued" Sounds like it to me.

I think it depends on the market. If the majority of current Lightroom users gradually move over to Lightroom CC, the remaining user base of Lightroom Classic will one day be too small to maintain it further, and so it will indeed be discontinued.

If a large enough user base ignores Lightroom CC and keeps using Lightroom Classic, Adobe will keep developing it further because it will be worth doing so. It's as simple as that.

Not really, Johan. Adobe can cleary ignore the Classic version and keep improving the CC one and adding features to it until enough users are switching to the new version because they cannot ignore the problems with the Classic one and are lured in by the new features. I think it's quite conceivable that a corporation can manipulate the market.

If they had a monopoly they could. But they don't have that. There are enough alternatives. Look what happened with Apple Aperture users. Did they switch to Apple Photos, like Apple wanted and suggested? No, most of them switched to Lightroom, CaptureOne, DxO and the likes.

Could it be that the codebase of the Classic CC has become an unmaintainable spaghetti and Adobe just wanted to rewrite the whole desktop program from scratch and with this move they can do it in phases over longer period of time?